Well, I couldn´t even make this thing work on my VM, I have never looked back since. The question which comes to mind is, do you guys think it´s better than Sandboxie and SafeSpace, to name a few? And yes, I know that ZAFF offers phishing and keylogging protection.

No visible slowdown in browsing, slight slowdown in opening new tabs or javascript pop-ups window in VISTA.

Tried Sandboxie sometime ago but rendered my system unstable and crashed few times. Sandboxie is covering more than the broswer, ForceField is just protecting the browsing... the latter is more near to my needs... i.e. a strong protection while suring the web.

Never tried SafeSpace... so don't know about advantages/disadvantages.

I did try Greenborder (when still alive) but it was slowing down the system.

I think I read on the beta program site that it works with Vista but it *deactivates IE Protected Mode browsing*! Hmmm, so it deactivates the native sandboxing that Vista supports at the OS level, just to replace it with a less-integrated (but perhaps feature-superior) sandbox?

I think I read on the beta program site that it works with Vista but it *deactivates IE Protected Mode browsing*! Hmmm, so it deactivates the native sandboxing that Vista supports at the OS level, just to replace it with a less-integrated (but perhaps feature-superior) sandbox?

I wouldn't go for that, especially while it's a Beta.

Click to expand...

Hi!
you have, as for other tools, a superior level of protection... as compared to default VISTA sandboxing.

The all point of installing such tools is to have something more than the EI7 Protecting Mode.
Otherwise there is no point of even take into consideration such tools...

Hi!
you have, as for other tools, a superior level of protection... as compared to default VISTA sandboxing.

The all point of installing such tools is to have something more than the EI7 Protecting Mode.
Otherwise there is no point of even take into consideration such tools...

Cheers,
Fax

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but here's a question.

Would it be sensible/possible to make a sandboxing-type security product that *uses* and *builds on* Vista's built-in Integrity Levels / Mandatory Access Control / Virtualization mechanism? From what I've seen in Invisible Things and others, MS has provided a very powerful mechanism which is only minimally utilized in the default configuration of Vista. For example there's a tool with which you can set the properties of a folder like My Documents to disallow even *reading* by Low Integrity (sandboxed) processes.

It seems preferable to me to use the methods that MS has built into the OS (if possible), rather than starting from scratch.

Not sure it is technically possible... do you know any tool that does this?
Fax

Click to expand...

I don't know whether any tool does this -- I was hoping you or someone else reading this thread would know. I haven't seen any "vista-only" sandboxing security products mentioned, but I haven't done an exhaustive search.

I suspect that nobody would come out with such a product until almost all users are on Vista. Except I wouldn't be at all surprised if MS themselves comes out with some recommended alternative configurations or tools for managing them, in ways that make the sandboxing more effective, like restricting read access and being able to roll back all the virtualized changes.

Hi!
as far as I understand ForceField should also cover the issue above, apart from running isolated from your system it will encrypts all temporary files/data within your browser, this data cannot be read.

"...Temp file encryption encrypts the temporary files that are automatically created on your PC as they type information on the Web, so you cannot be compromised by spyware on your PCs."

...
"...Temp file encryption encrypts the temporary files that are automatically created on your PC as they type information on the Web, so you cannot be compromised by spyware on your PCs."

Cheers,
Fax

Click to expand...

I meant it should keep you from entering sensitive information within the sandbox at all, not just temp files. For example if you try to enter a 9-digit number (could be US SS#) or an 8-digit number (could be bank account), or certain specified passwords, it should intercept it and ask if you really want to enter this within the sandbox (which may be compromised). This may remind you to do your sensitive transaction outside of the sandbox.

I meant it should keep you from entering sensitive information within the sandbox at all, not just temp files. For example if you try to enter a 9-digit number (could be US SS#) or an 8-digit number (could be bank account), or certain specified passwords, it should intercept it and ask if you really want to enter this within the sandbox (which may be compromised). This may remind you to do your sensitive transaction outside of the sandbox.

Click to expand...

Ah... well, if the sandbox is compromised I would not even make my transaction outside the sandbox... we cannot exclude to be also compromised.

I think we need to distinguish between sandboxing emulating systems and sandboxing only covering browsers. Your issue of compromised sandboxing seems to me to fit better with system sandboxing where malware can execute also outside the browser domain. Something note easily possible with sandboxing within browser unless specifically allowed.

I see your issue of intercepting more related to the capacity of the security tool to scramble screen and jam keylogging. So, even if the sandbox is compromised, malware would not be able to intercept keys.

I think you are turning around a general problem, no tool is 100% security proof. So, whatever approach (integrated or not integrated) may fail if targeted by malware. This is not a discussion related to ZA ForceField but to any security tool.

I think I read on the beta program site that it works with Vista but it *deactivates IE Protected Mode browsing*! Hmmm, so it deactivates the native sandboxing that Vista supports at the OS level, just to replace it with a less-integrated (but perhaps feature-superior) sandbox?